With respect you are not quoting the rule correctly. The word "uniform" is only mentioned in the rule with regard to colour change (see above). So you are not correct to say that the rule only comes into play "if the rubber is no longer uniform" because if the characteristics of the surface are changed significantly the covering is illegal - as the rule clearly states.

Let's try this again.. Here is the exact wording of the rule:

Quote:

2.04.07.01 Slight deviations from continuity of surface or uniformity of colour due to accidental damage or wear may be allowed provided that they do not significantly change the characteristics of the surface.

The word "they" clearly refers to deviations of continuity..Therefore, the 2nd part of the phrase only applies if there ARE deviations.. If there are no deviations, the part regarding playing characteristics does not even come into play.. If you don't believe me, ask a professor of the english language. THEY clearly refers to the damage.. If it does not refer to damage, what does it refer to??

So, if this was written as a computer program, it would be like this:

IF DEVIATION DUE TO DAMAGE THEN---IF DAMAGE CHANGES CHARACTERISTICS THEN------ILLEGAL---ELSE------MAY BE ALLOWED---END IFELSE---LEGALEND-IF

The other rule:

Quote:

2.04.07 The covering material should be used as it has been authorised by the ITTF without any physical, chemical or other treatment, changing or modifying playing properties, friction, outlook, colour, structure, surface, etc.

Clearly, outdoor table tennis is legal and promoted by the ITTF, so it is considered use, not treatment.

Quote:

I'd be interested to know what the sun does to the rubber to give it an effect that you like without the characteristics of the playing surface being altered? (i.e. the only way the loophole can be legal)

The sun hardens the rubber and harder rubber has less grip.. It's really that simple.. Hard rubber acts more like plastic than rubber.

LOL! You're admitting that the characteristics of the rubber are changed by the sun and you're trying to claim a loophole by breaking down language used to express the rule in a bizarre fashion and claiming a meaning that was never intended by the author.

I don't need to ask an English Professor as I'm sufficiently well qualified in the English language to understand the true meaning of rule 2.04.07.01.

Your analogy should be tax evasion (which is a criminal offence) and not tax avoidance, which can be dodgy loophole that circumvents a rule but which is otherwise not illegal - albeit that loopholes are usually closed and often reversed retrospectively.

I really think that morality is the correct word to be used in this instance and if I felt the need to circumvent a rule in this fashion I'd be taking a hard look at myself.

It is not tax evasion if you use all possible write offs that are legal.It is clear based on the wording that a rubber that is uniform and untreated that has lost friction due to use is legal based on the wording of the rules. ITTF would have to change the rules to change that and this means that the General Assembly has to act. The board of directors can't change the rules. All it takes is a rule that require a minimum friction rule when a rubber is being used and a device that can actually measure the friction. If there is something immoral, it is the Friction regulation. It was pushed through by Eberhard Schöler who was butt hurt that as a senior, he had little success and Herbert Neubauer's success using frictionless long pips. He used his position to ban the equipment that Neubauer produced and used with the reason that frictionless pips confuse the audience when watching tt which is bullcrap as there were no world class players with that equipment and therefore, none of the major broadcasted tourneys ever showed frictionless players. The regulation is exclusively due to an attempt by Schöler to ruin his enemy's business and tt success by using his position on the ITTF board of directors. Now, that is truly immoral.

Since they did manage to ban frictionless pips (but left anti alone, so go figure) - does it mean that such device to measure friction actually exist? Or it's all just a misnomer and it was not actually frictionless pips banned, but specific pip structures?

Of course, it's likely that such hypothetical device does not exist in portable form and can't be made available to every sanctioned tournament.

Finally, a couple of thoughts on 'outdoor' play:

* I visited FL couple of times, and you could not pay me enough to walk for 5 minutes in the sun (Orlando area in June), let alone play TT outside.

* So, given that 'outdoor' play is needed only to modify LP properties, I suspect outdoor play might amount to hitting a few balls in the morning (to satisfy legal loophole requirements) and then leaving paddle on the table pips up. Am I right?

Since they did manage to ban frictionless pips (but left anti lone, so go figure) - does it mean that such device to measure friction actually exist? Or it's all just a misnomer and it was not actually frictionless pips banned, but specific pip structures?

Of course, it's likely that such hypothetical device does not exist in portable form and can't be made available to every sanctioned tournament.

Finally, a couple of thoughts on 'outdoor' play:

* I visited FL couple of times, and you could not pay me enough to walk for 5 minutes in the sun (Orlando area in June), let alone play TT outside.

* So, given that 'outdoor' play is needed only to modify LP properties, I suspect outdoor play might amount to hitting a few balls in the morning (to satisfy legal loophole requirements) and then leaving paddle on the table pips up. Am I right?

With my style, I only use the inverted rubber to serve which is the only time in most rallies that it would face the sun.. In 99% of the cases, the inverted rubber is facing me and towards the floor. Watch some of my videos..I have been 20+ years in Florida and the heat does not bother me that much.. I just hate the tropical heavy rain but the temp is fine.. I do wear a cap when playing outdoors to project shade onto my face and very strong sunscreen on the rest of my exposed body parts.. Leaving the racket on the table would be treating.. I never leave it.. I just use it to play and then put it back into the cover. I don't just play outdoors tt in the summer but winter too.. Temp is perfect in winter.. 70's for the high and lots of sun..

Since they did manage to ban frictionless pips (but left anti lone, so go figure) - does it mean that such device to measure friction actually exist? Or it's all just a misnomer and it was not actually frictionless pips banned, but specific pip structures?

Of course, it's likely that such hypothetical device does not exist in portable form and can't be made available to every sanctioned tournament.

Finally, a couple of thoughts on 'outdoor' play:

* I visited FL couple of times, and you could not pay me enough to walk for 5 minutes in the sun (Orlando area in June), let alone play TT outside.

* So, given that 'outdoor' play is needed only to modify LP properties, I suspect outdoor play might amount to hitting a few balls in the morning (to satisfy legal loophole requirements) and then leaving paddle on the table pips up. Am I right?

With my style, I only use the inverted rubber to serve which is the only time in most rallies that it would face the sun.. In 99% of the cases, the inverted rubber is facing me and towards the floor. Watch some of my videos..I have been 20+ years in Florida and the heat does not bother me that much.. I just hate the tropical heavy rain but the temp is fine.. I do wear a cap when playing outdoors to project shade onto my face and very strong sunscreen on the rest of my exposed body parts.. Leaving the racket on the table would be treating.. I never leave it.. I just use it to play and then put it back into the cover. I don't just play outdoors tt in the summer but wihter too.. Temp is perfect in winter.. 70's for the high and lots of sun..

Lol again. It is not clear at all I'd suggest to 99% of the population but you have the end result you want and have justified it in your mind by misinterpreting what is actually a pretty easy to understand rule.

I'll close on that because I'm pretty sure people must be getting bored of this now.

Lol again. It is not clear at all I'd suggest to 99% of the population but you have the end result you want and have justified it in your mind by misinterpreting what is actually a pretty easy to understand rule.

I'll close on that because I'm pretty sure people must be getting bored of this now.

No matter how often you repeat it, the rule is written in clear english. Consult an expert on the english language if you doubt what I said.

Lol again. It is not clear at all I'd suggest to 99% of the population but you have the end result you want and have justified it in your mind by misinterpreting what is actually a pretty easy to understand rule.

I'll close on that because I'm pretty sure people must be getting bored of this now.

No matter how often you repeat it, the rule is written in clear english. Consult an expert on the english language if you doubt what I said.

I believe I am an expert in the English Language. It is my mother tongue. I matriculated in English with a distinction when I was in Western Australia as a youth and part of my degree was in English Language (and part in law). I'm a published author (in English) and writing in business and legal English has been a large part of my career for 40 years.

Lol again. It is not clear at all I'd suggest to 99% of the population but you have the end result you want and have justified it in your mind by misinterpreting what is actually a pretty easy to understand rule.

I'll close on that because I'm pretty sure people must be getting bored of this now.

No matter how often you repeat it, the rule is written in clear english. Consult an expert on the english language if you doubt what I said.

I believe I am an expert in the English Language. It is my mother tongue. I matriculated in English with a distinction when I was in Western Australia as a youth and part of my degree was in English Language (and part in law). I'm a published author (in English) and writing in business and legal English has been a large part of my career for 40 years.

And you?

I was an English major at an American Ivy League university and am an attorney, and I completely agree with Pushblocker's interpretation. The rule clearly does not say (or even imply) that natural changes in the rubber due to wear and tear from indoor or outdoor play make the rubber illegal, and if I, as an attorney, ever had to defend someone accused of doing something illegal by playing in the sun, as a result of which their pips became a bit more frictionless, I'd have a very easy time showing that they didn't violate anything. Laws (and rules like this) have to be written clearly to make it unambiguous what is or isn't okay, and when they're not, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the person being accused. I'd also reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, which is that when a rule is a ridiculous imposition that is the product of organizational corruption, like this one is, it's virtually a moral DUTY to find loopholes to expose the rule's unworkability and absurdity.

Time for the ittf to give something back to the defenders, it has become biased towards offence(faster blades,boosted Tenergy etc)relax the aspect ratio, with the larger harder balls it has become harder to work with ox lp as the ball meets the wood sooner making chopping less affective and control more difficult.I find that a glue sheet help the chopping and control (although tricky to get on),increasing pips length might be good

I was an English major at an American Ivy League university and am an attorney, and I completely agree with Pushblocker's interpretation. The rule clearly does not say (or even imply) that natural changes in the rubber due to wear and tear from indoor or outdoor play make the rubber illegal, and if I, as an attorney, ever had to defend someone accused of doing something illegal by playing in the sun, as a result of which their pips became a bit more frictionless, I'd have a very easy time showing that they didn't violate anything. Laws (and rules like this) have to be written clearly to make it unambiguous what is or isn't okay, and when they're not, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the person being accused. I'd also reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, which is that when a rule is a ridiculous imposition that is the product of organizational corruption, like this one is, it's virtually a moral DUTY to find loopholes to expose the rule's unworkability and absurdity.

Thank you..

I personally work as Systems Analyst for 25 years, designing programs based on specs, translating legal and business language into programs. That's why I initially translated that quote into pseudo code based on what it said in the english language. I'm also somewhat informed on legal issues and I read through many rulings and follow all supreme court rulings and read Scotusblog on a weekly basis.. Law and legal issues are highly interesting. I also have 2 closer friends who are attorneys and I asked them for their opinion on what my chances were if a referee would disallow my rubber even though technically it does not violate the rules and both of them said that my interpretation of the rules is absolutely correct and that I could sue, at least in FL for damages. (i.e. travel expenses, psychological damages due to being falsely accused of cheating etc.)I play about 8 tournaments per year and only once someone complained to the referee and he allowed it after inspection of the rubber.

Actually when the pips get harder and more frictionless, they have less dampening effect on higher velocity and spin balls for blocking. It does make it easier to handle lower speed spin balls. Dead balls are harder to control.

I was an English major at an American Ivy League university and am an attorney, and I completely agree with Pushblocker's interpretation. The rule clearly does not say (or even imply) that natural changes in the rubber due to wear and tear from indoor or outdoor play make the rubber illegal, and if I, as an attorney, ever had to defend someone accused of doing something illegal by playing in the sun, as a result of which their pips became a bit more frictionless, I'd have a very easy time showing that they didn't violate anything. Laws (and rules like this) have to be written clearly to make it unambiguous what is or isn't okay, and when they're not, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the person being accused. I'd also reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, which is that when a rule is a ridiculous imposition that is the product of organizational corruption, like this one is, it's virtually a moral DUTY to find loopholes to expose the rule's unworkability and absurdity.

I disagree. There is no absolutely no ambiguity in "provided that they do not significantly change the characteristics of the surface" unless you want it to be there to suit your agenda.

If you have any doubts about what is intended then you can also refer to the ITTF handbook for match officials which says "The covering must be used as it has been authorised by ITTF". By Pushblocker's admission after "playing in the sun" magically one side of the racket is not as authorised by ITTF as the properties have been altered.

As an attorney in the land of OJ Simpson you might be capable of persuading others that the wording of the relevant rule is unworkable and absurd but that in my opinion would make you part of the problem and not the solution.

As amateur players I believe we have a duty to play within the spirit and guidance of the laws and I can never agree that setting out deliberately to circumvent the rules as you advocate - no matter how competitive you are or how badly you want to achieve your goals - is ever justified.

I'm sure that I'm never going to convince you on this so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the topic. And as Pushblocker is getting away with using a covering that is not as authorised by the ITTF I expect he will continue to be happy with what he is able to achieve with it.

I was an English major at an American Ivy League university and am an attorney, and I completely agree with Pushblocker's interpretation. The rule clearly does not say (or even imply) that natural changes in the rubber due to wear and tear from indoor or outdoor play make the rubber illegal, and if I, as an attorney, ever had to defend someone accused of doing something illegal by playing in the sun, as a result of which their pips became a bit more frictionless, I'd have a very easy time showing that they didn't violate anything. Laws (and rules like this) have to be written clearly to make it unambiguous what is or isn't okay, and when they're not, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the person being accused. I'd also reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, which is that when a rule is a ridiculous imposition that is the product of organizational corruption, like this one is, it's virtually a moral DUTY to find loopholes to expose the rule's unworkability and absurdity.

I disagree. There is no absolutely no ambiguity in "provided that they do not significantly change the characteristics of the surface" unless you want it to be there to suit your agenda.

If you have any doubts about what is intended then you can also refer to the ITTF handbook for match officials which says "The covering must be used as it has been authorised by ITTF". By Pushblocker's admission after "playing in the sun" magically one side of the racket is not as authorised by ITTF as the properties have been altered.

As an attorney in the land of OJ Simpson you might be capable of persuading others that the wording of the relevant rule is unworkable and absurd but that in my opinion would make you part of the problem and not the solution.

As amateur players I believe we have a duty to play within the spirit and guidance of the laws and I can never agree that setting out deliberately to circumvent the rules as you advocate - no matter how competitive you are or how badly you want to achieve your goals - is ever justified.

I'm sure that I'm never going to convince you on this so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the topic. And as Pushblocker is getting away with using a covering that is not as authorised by the ITTF I expect he will continue to be happy with what he is able to achieve with it.

"THEY" refers to Deviations in uniformity or damage"If there is no deviation in color iniformity or any damage, this does not apply. I had 2 lawyer friends look at the langiage and now a 3rd legal professional on this forum has looked at the language and all of them coming to the same conclusion.. If the rule would state.

"The characteristics of the rubber may not significantly change", it would be different BUT it still would not establish what significantly change means. What is a significant change? loss of 50% of friction? loss of 40% speed? How do you establish what that really means and how do you measure that change without having a database of all characteristics of all rubbers to see if the threshold of change is exceeded? You would also need tools to determine if that threshold is exceeded. There is no rule that requires any amount of friction on the rubber at the time of use in a tournament. All that the ITTF would need to do is to pass a rule that a rubber when used in a tournament must have a minimum friction of 50 micro Newton and a tool that measures that friction under the same conditions and pressure on the ball as used for friction testing during the autorization process. The current situation is a result of the ITTF BoD ramming through regulations without accompanying rule changes.

Since getting involved in this thread I can see that it has been brought up countless times on this and other forums and people far more experienced and better qualified than me to comment have disagreed with your view.

Your arguments are only intended to obfuscate the real issue which is that you are deliberately altering the characteristics of the playing surface for your own ends. I'm fine about protesting the rules but circumventing them for gain can never be right.

You will never convince me otherwise. Be grateful that the eight tournaments that you enter a year allow you to use non-legal rubber.

FWIW I am minded to agree with mikea. All you've convinced me of in the last few posts is that you're managed entirely to justify cheating to yourself. I'm afraid regardless of your skill with your (not legal) pimples, as a player you've gone down in my estimation, and that's a sad feeling.

_________________"When one eye is fixed upon your destination, there is only one eye left with which to find the Way."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Jump to:

Copyright 2018 OOAK Table Tennis Forum. The information on this site cannot be reused without written permission.